<p>Everything depends on your expectations :) If you want a record of the critters you have watched and of course you don't expect to be hired by National Geographic Magazine, a superzoom can be a great companion for its price.<br>
I have the DMC-FZ200. (I can say I am a "Lumix" guy, my other camera is a LX2). The zoom lens reaches a "35 mm equivalent" of 600 mm, even when shooting raw you can make it double it with digital trickery (at the expense of quality of course, but I am talking about keeping a record of what you see, not professional magazine photos!) and the image stabilizer is so good you can manage to get reasonable (I say reasonable) handheld shots.</p>
<p>The 2.8 aperture for the whole zoom range is amazing (although the depth of field is really shallow at the maximum reach of course) and forget about manual focusing, it's a pain in the ass with the digital controls. But the auto focus works very well.</p>
<p>So: Not comparable to a DSLR with excellent optics, of course, but good value for money and loads of fun if you don't have too high expectations.</p>
<p>In my opinion equipment can be classified in three rough levels: Bad, Nice and Orgasmic. Superzooms and mid level binoculars belong to the "nice" cathegory. Good enough to enjoy the activity without struggling against the equipment, which means fun. Orgasmic would be the top class which, of course, makes your activity easier and it's so good that each time you use it you are amazed by its quality. </p>
<p>And yes, if you are too used to the "orgasmic" equipment you will consider what I put in the "nice" cathegory "bad". Again, it's a matter of expectations.</p>
<p>So, the best advice is simple: search for photos made with superzooms and make a decision based on that. </p>
<p>And, remember. Birdwatching is much more enjoyable using the binoculars and/or telescope because you are just watching. If you are fiddling with the camera trying to get a good shot you will surely miss some information such as behavior, surroundings...</p>
<p> </p>
